New Zealand Council last night agreed the following expectations for Party members.

Robust exchanges about the merits of any candidate for leadership need to be based on performance and attributes which are relevant to their ability to be the Labour Leader.

Members (including candidates for leadership) should not directly or indirectly refer to a candidate for leadership in a way which is denigrating or disrespectful.

Members should be cautious to ensure that any statements they make are factually accurate and fair. They should ensure that any public comment on the candidates, the Party and the leadership election system uphold the status of the Party and its chances of election to Government, and do not bring it into disrepute.

…chances of election to Government. Â You have to love the delusion optimism Â Read more »

In the NBR he strikes out against their abiding belief that they would somehow have the moral mandate to government despite hovering around 30% in current polling.

Delusions have consequences. If Labour persists in the belief it can somehow stitch together a governing coalition with a fraction over 30% of the vote, and that this is possible through a deft combination of coattail trickery and unprecedented turnout among non-voters, what can possibly persuade them to change course?

The problem with redefining defeat as almost-victory is that you deny yourself the urgency that comes with the prospect of imminent humiliation; you eschew bold risk taking for careful equivocation when the former is badly needed; and you end up with a great deal more bathwater than baby.

Labour needs to act like a party that knows itâ€™s losing, starting with an acknowledgement it as failed as yet to make the case that National under John Key has run its course. Thereâ€™s no point blaming David Cunliffe, even if itâ€™s true he has proven no more capable than his predecessors of denting the PMâ€™s formidable popularity.

No traction, no dents, despite attempts to portray National as crony capitalists, crooked and corrupt. The plan has failed but they persist with it.

During the race to replace David Shearer, Mr Cunliffeâ€™s supporters made much of his superior debating skills and media polish. But the notion that sharper presentation alone could rescue Labourâ€™s fortunes was always far-fetched. As excuses for losing go, itâ€™s a fallacy as pernicious and commonplace as that which holds voters to blame for refusing to know whatâ€™s good for them.

Among rivals for the Labour leadership, only Shane Jones seemed to understand the gravity of Labourâ€™s predicament, or sense a way out. Before making a credible claim on the Treasury benches, Mr Jones argued that Labour would need to set the bar at 40%, not 30%. Mr Jones, admittedly a flawed candidate in many respects, attracted close to no support among party and union elites who saw his call for a broader church as more evidence of unreliability.

Populism has no home in todayâ€™s Labour Party, a proposition Mr Jones made sure to test one last time before quitting Parliament altogether. His departure was calamitous for Labour for two reasons: it looked like a vote of no confidence in Labourâ€™s chances and, just as importantly, reinforced a growing perception the party has become inhospitable for a Greens-baiting, unashamedly pro-growth populist.

And yet, the activist clique which governs Labour and adheres most stringently to the Thirty Percent Doctrine couldnâ€™t have been happier with Mr Jonesâ€™ exit if they had overseen the purge themselves.

This is a terrible series of events. Â It appears that the 18-year old was subject to unwanted advances by an MP, which is bad enough. But the fact that the two allegedly met while the MP was acting in an official capacity makes matters significantly worse, elevating it to a serious abuse of position and trust. Â Â This, if true, is what makes the story a genuine scandal, whatever the specifics of the incident itself.

Labour is refusing to comment at the time of writing, which is probably because they are furiously gathering facts and devising an appropriate response. Â There may also be some hope that the scandal will go away if the accuser decides against pursuing the matter. Â If falls somewhere between inconceivable and unlikely that this will happen â€” name suppression is a tenuous form of containment in New Zealand at the best of times.

My understanding is that heavy drinking was involved in the lead-up to the alleged events. Â This is par for the course, both with respect to the NZ Parliament (which is a booze barn) and with respect to the MP himself who is widely known to imbibe with great and growing enthusiasm.

Therefore, the alleged scandal contains at least the following elements:

The MP made unwanted sexual advances towards an 18-year male after an official function

The MP is gay or bisexual, but has concealed the fact

He has a drinking problem

This appears closely reminiscent of the Mark Foley scandal whereupon the Florida Congressman got in deep water over sleazy text messages and emails he sent to Congressional pages. The same abuse of authority, the same murky and closeted sexuality, the predictable role of booze. Â Foley resigned in disgrace after it became clear he would be turfed by his colleagues if he didnâ€™t. Â He then attempted to mitigate his actions through revelations of alcoholism and childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a priest. Foley is now openly gay, and there are periodic reports that he is considering a return to public life.

OnÂ theÂ basis of those facts it is hard to see how or even why Labour is dying in theÂ ditchÂ to defend Darren Hughes.

What can our Labour MP learn from the Foley scandal and, more generally, how can he begin to respond to these events?

First, if these allegations turn out toÂ accurately reflect events, there is no hope that the MP can remain in Parliament. Â It is not because he is gay or drinks too much; it is that he, at the very least, is guilty of straight-forward sexual harassment. Â If, for example, he was accused by someone at a gay bar of acting inappropriately or abusively, this would be damaging but not fatal (although this would complicated by the presence of a spouse). Â In such a scenario, he would need, probably, to leave the front-bench â€“ but as long as he managed his response to the sexuality/alcohol abuse questions, he could stay in Parliament and rehabilitate his career. Â At a gay bar, he is just another drunken, horny closet-case. Â Take a number, get in line.

Coudn’tÂ haveÂ said it better myself. This isn’t some sort of gay bashing slug-fest. What is important here is the abuse of authority and the sexualÂ harassment, it matters not a bit that Darren Hughes may or may not be gay.

If the allegations are false because the events did not occur orÂ occurredÂ in a drastically different way, he must obviously fight until his name is cleared.

If the allegations are false by dint ofÂ subjective interpretation of events, he must avoid allowing this to descend into a unedifying spectacle ofÂ â€śhe said-he saidâ€ť. Â He will get no credit for disputing the account of an 18 year old. Â It is far better to concede what he canÂ on his terms. Â While obviously avoiding self-incrimination on the advice of his lawyers, he ought to frame the events in a way that does not attempt to demean, or indeed blame, the alleged victim. Â This will not save his career in the short term, but will give him a fighting chance at rebuilding his reputation over the coming years.

A serious complicating issue here is the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia, which is unfortunately well embedded in our culture. Â There is little doubt that certain elements will want to characterise this as something akin to child abuse despite the alleged victimâ€™s age (18). Â If this were to take hold in the public mind, this represents a fatal blow to the MPâ€™s reputation. Â It would elevate the scandal to a new level of seriousness with broader implications for the Labour brand.

Uhmmm not sure I agree with Phil here. To my knowledge no-one except Phil Quinn himself has made the link, tenuous and false though it is, of homosexuality with pedophilia. If I was Darren Hughes I wouldn’t be listening to that piece of advice.

PersonallyÂ I don’t care one way or another about a person’s sexuality. I care very much though whether there has been an abuse ofÂ powerÂ or authority. SexualÂ harassmentÂ is not acceptable wither in theÂ heterosexualÂ community nor inÂ theÂ gay community. This is the issue here, along with Labour’s apparent willingness to try to whitewash the issues and now their scurrilous attacks on the alleged victim that they are shopping around the place.